Discussion Title: Will man-made climate change cause human extinction?

1. Man-made climate change will cause human extinction.
1.1. Pro: The effects of global warming directly threaten the land and environment that humans need to live.
1.1.1. Con: Many scientists [disagree](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming) that humans are the primary reason for global warming and have stated it's a cycle due to sun.
1.1.1.1. Pro: [Earth’s climate has always warmed and cooled](https://climatechange.procon.org/arguments/earths-climate-has-always-warmed-and-cooled-and-the-20th-century-rise-in-global-temperature-is-within-the-bounds-of-natural-temperature-fluctuations-over-the-past-3000-years/), and the 20th century rise in global temperature is within the bounds of natural temperature fluctuations over the past 3,000 years.
1.1.1.2. Pro: Up to 70% of the observed post-1850 climate change and warming could be associated to multiple solar cycles. \(Scafetta, p.17\)
1.1.2. Con: Global warming has been even dubbed as a "[natural, predictable change](https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/01/10/global-warming-no-natural-predictable-climate-change/)". Thus, it's a cycle of temperature changes which will increase and decrease and continue to do that.
1.1.2.1. Con: Scientists have found that higher global temperatures often lead to [mass extinctions](https://phys.org/news/2018-12-biggest-mass-extinction-global-ocean.html). Even if it is a cycle, it is highly possible that today's climate change will lead to another mass extinction event.
1.1.3. Pro: There is a rise in diseases as pathogenic organisms are able to spread to more and more parts of the world owing to climate change.
1.1.3.1. Pro: [Cryptococcal infection,](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/spread-of-deadly-cryptococcal-disease-in-northwest-linked-to-global-warming/) once thought to be an exclusively tropical disease, has spread to areas in the Pacific Northwest.
1.1.3.2. Pro: Diseases like malaria, dengue fever, chikungunya and West Nile virus will [spread](https://earth.stanford.edu/news/how-does-climate-change-affect-disease#gs.df2isd) past the areas they are currently limited to as the Earth warms.
1.1.4. Pro: Heat waves can cause massive deaths.
1.1.4.1. Pro: In 2019, nearly [1500](https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/08/europe/france-heat-wave-deaths-intl-hnk-scli/index.html) deaths have been linked to heat waves in France.
1.1.4.2. Pro: Climate change has been linked to [increased incidences](https://skepticalscience.com/heatwaves-past-global-warming-climate-change.htm) of heat waves.
1.1.4.2.1. Pro: Record-breaking temperatures are happening [five times](https://skepticalscience.com/heatwaves-past-global-warming-climate-change.htmhttps://skepticalscience.com/heatwaves-past-global-warming-climate-change.htm) more often than they would without any human-caused global warming.
1.1.4.3. Pro: In 2003, during a major European heat wave, [14,802](https://www.livescience.com/55129-how-heat-waves-kill-so-quickly.html) people died of hyperthermia in France alone.
1.1.4.4. Con: Heat Waves can't possibly cause whole humanity to die.
1.1.4.4.1. Pro: Heat Waves strong enough to cause human death do not occur everywhere in the world.For example: [cold regions](https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/1022/Himalayan-climate-change-threatens-regional-stability.-Can-India-help) like Himalayas
1.1.4.4.1.1. Con: The frequency and intensity of heat waves is likely to [increase](https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/1022/Himalayan-climate-change-threatens-regional-stability.-Can-India-help).
1.1.4.5. Con: The human population is huge and growing, to the point that mass death is often not even enough to outpace population growth.
1.1.4.5.1. Pro: The world population currently grows by over [80 million per year](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/); the death toll of even extreme heat waves does not compare to such figures.
1.1.4.6. Pro: According to a [peer-reviewed article](https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3322), 74% of the world population are threatened by deadly heat by 2100. If we drastically change emissions we can only lower it down to 48%.
1.1.5. Pro: Rising sea levels can cause severe flooding and thus endanger human lives.
1.1.5.1. Pro: More than [60%](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/extinction-rebellion-urges-action-on-calamitous-rising-sea-levels-1.4019886) of the population of Ireland live within 10 kilometres of the coast.
1.1.5.2. Con: The rise is sea level is[very slow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise) just for a idea nearly 7 mm per year and even if antartica melts sea level will just rise by 70 meters and it is predicted to take 5000 yrs for antartica to melt at current rate which is slowing due to our attempts.
1.1.5.2.1. Con: It is estimated that if greenhouse gas pollution is not checked, sea levels will rise another [3 or 4 feet](https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/sea-level_rise/index.html) on average per year, which is a significant amount.
1.1.5.2.1.1. Con: This is a big 'if'. Most countries plan to [switch](https://interestingengineering.com/these-9-countries-want-to-ban-diesel-cars-very-soon) to electric vehicles by 2050.
1.2. Con: Whilst the man made climate change has caused the demise of many animal species the human population continues to explode.
1.3. Con: Climate change will not cause human extinction. Indeed human will find the solutions in order to survive, human brain is so powerful and so creative so it will not have problem for the most capable.
1.4. Pro: Human evolution is slower than the rate of climate change, making it difficult for humans to adapt to climate change
1.4.1. Con: [Genetic engineering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering) may help.
1.4.1.1. Pro: [Inducing](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/how-engineering-the-human-body-could-combat-climate-change/253981/) a slight red meat intolerance to humans using genetic engineering could help check the human consumption of meat, which contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emission.
1.4.1.1.1. Pro: Global livestock is responsible for [7.1 Gigatonnes](http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/) of Co2-equivalent per year, representing 14.5% of all anthropogenic GHG emissions.
1.4.1.2. Pro: Making humans smaller would [reduce](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/how-engineering-the-human-body-could-combat-climate-change/253981/) the ecological footprint of each person.
1.4.1.3. Pro: [Pharmacological enhancement](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/how-engineering-the-human-body-could-combat-climate-change/253981/) of empathy and altruism, which tend to be highly correlated with positive attitudes toward the environment, could be induced.
1.5. Con: Given that many people already survive in in extreme temperatures, a few more degrees of extreme temperature is unlikely to threaten extinction.
1.5.1. Con: It's global average temperature. [Last time the global average temperature was 9 degrees lower, NYC was under a glacier.](https://www.sfu.ca/archaeology/museum/exhibits/virtual-exhibits/glacial-and-post-glacial-archaeology-of-north-america/glaciation-of-north-america.html)
1.5.2. Pro: Even when it's extremely hot in [Arizona](https://www.12news.com/article/weather/heat/122-degrees-might-be-phoenixs-hottest-but-arizona-has-seen-hotter/75-567788474), people are still alive there.
1.5.2.1. Con: Climate change are causing the average temperature in Arizona to continue to [increase.](https://statesatrisk.org/arizona/all) This means that area that are originally hot will continue to get hotter, which way lead to more heat waves.
1.5.2.2. Con: A few ["breadbasket" regions](https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/production.pdf) produce food for most of the world's population. Turning those places into Arizona would have severe consequences for human civilization.
1.5.3. Con: A few degrees of average temperature can cause [dramatic losses in agricultural production](https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article/47/9/1353/470885).
1.6. Pro: Animal species have already started to become extinct. Human extinction is likely to follow.
1.6.1. Pro: In its 2017 edition, a list by the International Union for Conservation of Nature \(IUCN\) icludes [87,967 species](https://www.iberdrola.com/environment/climate-change-endangered-species), of which 25,062 are in danger of extinction.
1.6.2. Con: Species go extinct but it does not follow that these are necessarily caused by carbon based effects on the climate.
1.6.2.1. Pro: There are [multiple possible reasons](https://www.thoughtco.com/reasons-animals-go-extinct-3889931) why species go extinct. One must explicitly demonstrate that man caused climate change is the underlying cause.
1.6.2.1.1. Pro: [Asteroid strikes](https://www.thoughtco.com/reasons-animals-go-extinct-3889931) have caused many species to go extinct.
1.6.2.1.2. Pro: [Climate change](https://www.thoughtco.com/reasons-animals-go-extinct-3889931) has always occurred regardless of man's activity and has been an underlying cause of extinction.
1.6.2.1.3. Pro: [Disease](https://www.thoughtco.com/reasons-animals-go-extinct-3889931) causes specie extinction.
1.6.2.1.4. Pro: [Loss of habitat](https://www.thoughtco.com/reasons-animals-go-extinct-3889931) \(not necessarily caused by human climate emissions\) can cause species to go extinct.
1.6.2.1.5. Pro: [Lack of genetic diversity](https://www.thoughtco.com/reasons-animals-go-extinct-3889931) can cause species to go extinct.
1.6.2.1.6. Pro: [Invasive species](https://www.thoughtco.com/reasons-animals-go-extinct-3889931) can cause species to go extinct.
1.6.2.1.7. Pro: [Lack of food](https://www.thoughtco.com/reasons-animals-go-extinct-3889931) \(not necessarily related to human climate emissions\) can cause species to go extinct.
1.6.2.1.8. Pro: [Human predation](https://www.thoughtco.com/reasons-animals-go-extinct-3889931) can [cause](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/06/the-killing-of-large-species-is-pushing-them-towards-extinction-study-finds) species to go extinct.
1.6.2.1.9. Pro: [Human pollution](https://www.thoughtco.com/reasons-animals-go-extinct-3889931) that causes [environmental degradation](https://www.crd.bc.ca/education/our-environment/concerns/habitat-loss-degradation) can lead to the extinction of species.
1.6.2.2. Con: Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a [natural “background” rate](https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/) of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we're now losing species at up to 1,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day.
1.6.2.2.1. Con: Humans have also been responsible for preserving and creating new animal species.
1.6.2.2.1.1. Pro: During the last 12,000 years, [scientists](https://www.wired.com/2016/06/humanity-killing-off-thousands-species-creating/) have recorded 1,359 plant and animal extinctions. Meanwhile, humans have relocated 891 plant and animal species, and domesticated 743—for a total of 1,634 species.
1.6.2.2.2. Con: Extinction is hard to document as it’s happening. That’s why extinction rates are usually calculated with extrapolations and models. These models give [wildly different numbers.](https://www.wired.com/2016/06/humanity-killing-off-thousands-species-creating/)
1.6.2.2.2.1. Pro: Only about [800 extinctions](https://e360.yale.edu/features/global_extinction_rates_why_do_estimates_vary_so_wildly) have been documented in the past 400 years.
1.6.2.2.2.2. Pro: Species, such as the Guadalupe fur seal, that were considered extinct were found to [still be alive](https://e360.yale.edu/features/global_extinction_rates_why_do_estimates_vary_so_wildly).
1.6.2.3. Con: A [study](https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/2/eaaq1819.full) determined causal, mechanistic links between climate warming and local extinction. These links were identified by coupling 25 years of climate manipulation \(the “Warming Meadow”\) with longitudinal abundance surveys and experimental seed introductions of a native, mountain wildflower.
1.6.3. Pro: Between 15 and 37% of 1103 endemic or near-endemic known plant and animal species will be "[committed to extinction](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8928870_Extinction_risk_from_climate_change)" by 2050.
1.6.3.1. Con: Many laboratory and field studies have demonstrated, elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 have been conclusively shown [to stimulate plant productivity and growth](http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/MonetaryBenefitsofRisingCO2onGlobalFoodProduction.pdf), as well as to foster certain water-conserving and stress-alleviating benefits.
1.6.4. Pro: In 2008, the [white lemuroid possum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_ecosystems) was reported to be the first known mammal species to be driven extinct by man-made global warming.
1.6.4.1. Con: A population of white lemuroid possum lives 100 km south of [Northern Queensland](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16875-rumours-of-possums-death-were-greatly-exaggerated/) in good health.
1.6.5. Pro: In 2016 the [Bramble Cay melomys](https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2016/06/extinct-bramble-cay-melomys/), which lived on a Great Barrier Reef island, were reported to be extinct.
1.6.5.1. Con: The [research team](https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2016/06/extinct-bramble-cay-melomys/) concluded that increased carbon emissions from human activity was responsible for increased sea levels which led to the demise of the species. This assumes that rising sea levels are primarily caused by human carbon emissions. This is far from apparent.
1.6.5.1.1. Pro: The [list of demonstrably false](https://climateilluminated.com/predictions/List_Failed_Predictions.html) climate predictions of doom is enormous and embarrassing for those who believe them. This should give anyone pause in contributing any modern tragedy to man created climate change.
1.6.5.1.2. Pro: Human carbon emissions are an implausible explanation for increased global temperatures over the past 50 years.
1.6.5.1.2.1. Pro: There is evidence that [carbon is largely irrelevant](http://joannenova.com.au/2017/04/alarming-arctic-heat-waves-look-a-lot-like-the-last-alarming-heat-waves-in-1940s/) to global temperature change.
1.6.5.1.2.2. Pro: The modern warming only exceeds Common Era pre-industrial natural variability by a maximum of 0.216° C. So, it is [highly unlikely](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/16/a-few-thoughts-on-the-fourth-national-climate-assessment-nca4/) that the “range of the human contribution to the global mean temperature increase over the period 1951–2010 is 1.1° to 1.4°F \(0.6° to 0.8°C\).
1.6.5.1.2.3. Pro: Global warming started well before humanity’s increase in carbon emissions.
1.6.5.1.2.3.1. Pro: [Glaciers were in retreat](https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/unnamed.gif) from rising temperatures [well before](https://gemstatepatriot.com/blog/obamas-prophecies-of-climate-doom-in-alaska-fall-flat/) humanity’s carbon contributions.
1.6.5.1.2.3.2. Pro: Sea level acceleration up to the present has been about 0.01 mm/yr2 and appears to have started at the end of the 18th century, [well before human carbon emissions](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008GL033611). Sea level rose by 6 cm during the 19th century and 19 cm in the 20th century.
1.6.5.1.2.4. Pro: Global warming is not unprecedented.
1.6.5.1.2.4.1. Pro: Over the past 2,000 years, the average temperature of the Northern Hemisphere has exceeded natural variability \(defined as two standard deviations from the pre-1865 mean\) three times: 1\) the peak of the Medieval Warm Period 2\) the nadir of the Little Ice Age and 3\) since 1998. Human activities were unlikely to have been the cause of the first two deviations. [70% of the warming since the early 1600’s clearly falls within the range of natural variability.](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/16/a-few-thoughts-on-the-fourth-national-climate-assessment-nca4/)
1.6.5.1.2.4.2. Pro: Vikings were [able to farm](https://gemstatepatriot.com/blog/obamas-prophecies-of-climate-doom-in-alaska-fall-flat/) in Greenland during the Medieval warming period. Therefore, this warming pattern is not unprecedented and has happened before.
1.6.5.1.2.4.3. Pro: Global temperatures have [followed a natural cycle of millennia](http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle). Even if mankind has caused changes, this doesn’t appear to impact global temperatures.
1.6.6. Con: Extinction of some Animal species and Human extinction are quite different.
1.6.6.1. Con: Humans depend on a healthy biosphere in order to exist. Climate change [threatens](https://www.who.int/mediacentre/commentaries/healthy-planet/en/) the Earth and its habitability.
1.6.6.2. Pro: Humans can [adapt](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-may-be-most-adaptive-species/) much more than animals.
1.6.6.3. Pro: We Have technology and knowledge which will prevent our extinction.
1.6.6.4. Pro: Humans have survived the extinction of many species.
1.6.6.5. Pro: Humans are more distributed over earth which increases the chances of survival.
1.7. Con: Man-made carbon emissions are likely to protect humans from another ice age.
1.7.1. Pro: During the last four ice ages, [CO2 concentration has been dangerously low](https://phys.org/news/2019-06-mystery-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-ice.html) falling below 190 ppm. In the most recent ice age, it fell to 182 ppm. [Below 150 ppm, most terrestrial plant life cannot exist](https://wryheat.wordpress.com/2016/06/28/carbon-dioxide-is-necessary-for-life-on-earth/).
1.7.1.1. Pro: It is calculated that if the decline in CO2 levels were to continue at the same rate as it has over the past 140 million years,[life on Earth would begin to die as soon as two million years from now](https://wryheat.wordpress.com/2016/06/28/carbon-dioxide-is-necessary-for-life-on-earth/) and would slowly perish almost entirely as carbon continued to be lost to the deep ocean sediments.
1.8. Pro: While the human species might survive in special shelters, most of human culture \(e.g. kindness\) might go extinct during the battles for scarce resources and spots in shelters. While this is technically not an extinction, it might be an extinction of what we now know as human qualities.
1.9. Pro: As our realization of what our over use of carbon based energy sources is slowly, very slowly sinking through even the thickest of craniums I feel we may just be on time to avert a total disaster.
1.10. Pro: Climate change cause food security problems.
1.10.1. Con: The ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content is causing [a great greening of the Earth.](https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/CCR/CCR-IIb/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf) \(see pg. 3\)
1.10.1.1. Con: The increase in carbon dioxide content in the air would increase global temperatures. This can lead certain plant species to extinction due to [lack of habitat](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-50059-6) with suitable temperature ranges.
1.10.1.2. Con: The greening of the Earth will be [limited by other factors,](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production/) such as water, nitrogen, and phosphorus.
1.10.2. Con: There is [little or no risk of increasing food insecurity](https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/CCR/CCR-IIb/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf) due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels. \(see pg. 3\)
1.10.3. Con: [Carbon is good for agriculture](https://www.kialo.com/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-pollutant-it-is-a-non-toxic-non-irritating-and-natural-component-of-the-atmosphere-31221.162?path=31221.0~31221.3_31221.35-31221.162&active=-31221.162&action=edit) since studies show numerous growth-enhancing, water-conserving and stress-alleviating effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on plants growing in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. \(see pg. 3\)
1.10.3.1. Con: Although photosynthesis will be benefited with the extra carbon dioxide, other limiting factors, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, will limit plant growth. In short, the effects carbon dioxide have will be limited by the supply of other [available resources](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/).
1.10.3.2. Con: The "greening" effect of increased CO2 is offset by the "browning" effect of heat. The net result is a [loss of agricultural production](https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article/47/9/1353/470885).
1.10.4. Pro: The impact of extreme droughts is [growing](https://wwf.panda.org/our_work/water/?352050/Worsening-drought-risk-impacts-55-million-people-every-year-says-WWF-report) worldwide.
1.10.4.1. Pro: [Droughts](https://drought.unl.edu/Education/DroughtforKids/DroughtEffects.aspx) create food shortages by destroying crops.
1.10.4.1.1. Con: Droughts in the United States are [not becoming more extreme](https://www.investors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/drought-download1-2016.png).
1.10.4.1.2. Con: Since 2012, there has been [a downtrend in drought](https://cornwallalliance.org/2019/05/pennsylvania-climate-action-plan-crippling-costs-for-no-benefit/) across the earth for 30 years.
1.10.4.1.3. Pro: The Global Report on Food Crises 2017 shows that [108 million](http://www.fao.org/emergencies/resources/documents/resources-detail/en/c/876564/) people are already facing severe shortages, driven by drought and conflict.
1.10.5. Con: Technological advances in agriculture could mitigate any alleged losses to food supply caused by man-based climate change.
1.10.5.1. Pro: Vertical farms enable food security.
1.10.5.1.1. Pro: Vertical farming is [more efficient](https://www.kialo.com/vertical-farming-decreases-to-resources-land-water-co2-and-chemicals-such-as-pesticides-needed-to-grow-food-7487.10?path=7487.0~7487.1_7487.9_7487.10) than conventional farming.
1.10.5.1.1.1. Pro: Vertical farms [grow crops year-round](http://www.verticalfarms.com.au/advantages-vertical-farming) \(instead of seasonally\).
1.10.5.1.1.2. Pro: Vertical farms use [90% less water](http://www.basicknowledge101.com/subjects/verticalfarming.html) than is used in conventional farming.
1.10.5.1.1.3. Pro: It is [estimated](http://www.verticalfarm.com/?page_id=36) that one acre of vertical farm could be equivalent to as many as ten to twenty traditional soil-based acres, depending upon which crop species is considered.
1.10.5.1.2. Pro: Crops are [afforded protection](http://www.verticalfarm.com/?page_id=36) from weather-related problems \(such as severe flooding\).
1.10.5.2. Con: Such technological advances cannot be accessed by all farmers due to [cost concerns](https://www.capitalpress.com/nation_world/profit/farmers-consider-expensive-tech-amid-low-commodity-prices/article_205649bb-cbb6-5fe3-b43b-6b88a491588a.html).
1.10.5.2.1. Con: It is reasonable to suggest that if there is money to be made in producing food, the free market will respond to meet that need.
1.10.5.2.2. Con: It is reasonable to suggest that if food supply is an issue and vertical farms will result in more food, governments will provide subsidies to create them.
1.10.5.3. Pro: With time it becomes more likely that [synthetic food engineering](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/food-engineering) will help in managing food security problems.
1.10.6. Con: Droughts can't possibly lead to extinction of entire human race.
1.10.7. Pro: The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations \(FAO\) predicts that up to [a quarter](https://www.eniday.com/en/human_en/food-security-climate-change/) of global food production could be lost by 2050.
1.10.8. Pro: The[Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change reports](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf) that due to sea levels rising, coastal systems and low-lying areas will see more submergence, flooding, and coastal erosion which will impact on the production of many of the world’s staple foods.
1.10.8.1. Con: In the unlikely scenario that climate changes are this dramatic, it is reasonable to conclude that [new areas of farmable land will appear](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_agriculture) because of increased temperatures in more northern hemispheres.
1.10.9. Pro: Increases in temperature as a result of climate change are threatening crop yields.
1.10.9.1. Con: -> See 1.6.3.1.
1.10.9.2. Con: For a 300-ppm increase in the air’s CO2 content, herbaceous plant biomass is typically [enhanced by 22 to 55%](http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/MonetaryBenefitsofRisingCO2onGlobalFoodProduction.pdf), proving that an increase in carbon can lead to more plant growth. \(see pg. 3\)
1.10.9.2.1. Con: Those are "biomass" measures, in temperature-controlled greenhouse studies. Studies that measure grain yield, along with realistic heating show [rice yield falling to zero](https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article/47/9/1353/470885), despite increases in biomass.
1.10.9.3. Pro: It is estimated that climate change is reducing global rice yields by [0.3%](https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-affecting-crop-yields-and-reducing-global-food-supplies-118897).
1.10.9.4. Pro: It is estimates that wheat yields decrease by [0.9%](https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-affecting-crop-yields-and-reducing-global-food-supplies-118897) on average each year.
1.10.9.5. Pro: One study showed that climate change is reducing consumable food calories by around [1%](https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-affecting-crop-yields-and-reducing-global-food-supplies-118897) yearly for the top 10 global crops.
1.11. Con: Even if the Earth is hit by massive calamities, some humans will be able to go underground, build special shelters, or find some other way to continue the species in low numbers.
1.11.1. Con: Although the some human may survive the initial catastrophe, the genetic diversity of humans may decrease due the bottleneck effect. This, in turn, can lead to an [extinction vortex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_vortex), where inbreeding causes lower individual evolutionary fitness that will lead to smaller and smaller population. In short, if the human population drops too low, extinction will be become almost inevitable due to lack of genetic diversity.
1.12. Con: Climate Change Is slow. We can adapt within that much time with the help of technology.
1.12.1. Pro: Some parts of the world around the poles will likely remain habitable. A small portion of the population can survive there.
1.12.2. Pro: [Geoengineering](https://www.businessinsider.com/geoengineering-how-to-reverse-climate-change-2019-4) is likely to reverse the impacts of climate change.
1.12.3. Con: Climate change is slow, but so are massive changes to the entire population. It may not be possible for everyone to adopt in time, especially if they don't know or believe until it's too late.
1.12.3.1. Pro: This is evidenced by the difficulties in [moving/reinforcing cities](https://matadornetwork.com/read/major-cities-sinking/), [renewable energy](https://www.wcpo.com/news/national/renewable-energy-is-booming-but-its-not-growing-fast-enough-to-combat-climate-change), [overhauling agriculture](https://phys.org/news/2015-12-sustainable-vertical-farming.html), etc.
1.12.3.1.1. Con: Even if cities are not shifted and a very less percentage of human population survives extinction will be prevented.
1.12.4. Con: Even though climate change is slow, large cities can't be easily physically moved if at all from extreme conditions \(rising sea levels, drought, etc.\). We may adapt somewhat, but it may not be enough.
1.12.5. Pro: This could happen if we decide to move off the planet.
1.13. Pro: If [tipping points](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system) are reached, the collapse of ecosystems can lead to the extinction of the human race.
1.13.1. Pro: It is very likely it will if food sources are affected. Even if climate change doesn't render humanity extinct, it will erode the possibilities for decent human survival, as Noam Chomsky points out.
1.14. Con: Evidences and statistics suggest that actions taken by us are enough to deal with major climate change.
1.14.1. Pro: According to NASA's Ozone Watch the [Ozone levels](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/2019-ozone-hole-is-the-smallest-on-record-since-its-discovery/) have increased. Similarly we can't say that emissions are decreasing but their increase is surely getting slower.
1.14.2. Con: The amounts of [emissions](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/greenhouse-gases/) like Carbon Dioxide and other harmful gases are increasing which proves that our efforts are not enough.
1.14.2.1. Con: The emmisions are increasing but their rate of increase is decreasing due to steps being taken like shifting to electric vehicles.
1.14.3. Con: Forests are being cut regularly for development along with disasters like [forest fires increasing](https://www.dw.com/en/how-climate-change-is-increasing-forest-fires-around-the-world/a-19465490) due to humans and reducing even more forest area.
1.14.4. Con: The UN has [unequivocally stated](https://www.npr.org/2019/11/26/783069685/u-n-report-says-world-is-not-doing-enough-when-it-comes-to-climate-change) that we are not doing enough to combat climate change.
1.14.4.1. Pro: There’s [a huge gap](https://www.technologyreview.com/f/609282/were-still-not-doing-enough-to-beat-climate-change/) between international government commitments and the goals outlined in the Paris climate pact.
1.14.5. Con: Scientists believe that we are fast approaching total emissions that will lead to irreversible harm \(barring climate-engineering\)